New WJU MBB HC

[CALUPA69]

Chair of board of trustees named president. Political science major osu, Democrat nominee for state rep in Ohio in 2016 but lost.

From an outsider perspective , wheeling hospital, wju and the diocese oversight personal networks have been intertwined for some time.

Excuse my confusion, but has MIHALYO officially been fired ? The article only mentions his administrative leave from August.

[Columbuseer]

Is he officially terminated or just on administrative leave ? Can't be wrongful termination if he wasn't fired.

Chair of board of trustees named president. Political science major osu, Democrat nominee for state rep in Ohio in 2016 but lost.

From an outsider perspective , wheeling hospital, wju and the diocese oversight personal networks have been intertwined for some time.

[CALUPA69]

Two points on proving fraud...First, the plaintiff must prove based on the preponderance of the evidence that the information he was provided AT THE TIME HE WAS PROVIDED IT, was wrong. Second, the plaintiff has to show that the defendant gave him the fraudulent data in attempt to deceive him. IF the information was believed by WU to be true when it was provided to him and subsequently became false or was shown to be false, the plaintiff would lose the case.

Fraud is considered an "intent crime" (yes, even civil fraud). To win the plaintiff has to not only show that the information they received was fraudulent, they have to show that the defendant knew it was fraudulent and provided it any way to obtain something of value from the plaintiff (in this case, his work hours).

This is just what I've observed in fraud cases...If there were several factual assessments of the financial situation of an organization and the company only provided one of those to the prospective employee, the company is not guilty of fraud as the information they provided is not fraudulent...incomplete yes, but not fraudulent.

But to my eye, I still wonder why he didn't file his lawsuit based on wrongful termination? Seems like a much easier case to make.

Is he officially terminated or just on administrative leave ? Can't be wrongful termination if he wasn't fired.

[boatcapt]

Absolutely an "at will" employee. However, presidents are usually under an independent contract since the job duties and compensation are so unique compared to the rest of the campus. When hiring a president, a lot of documents and figures are shared, so if those numbers shared during the interview phase were inaccurate or misrepresented they'd have a case.

Two points on proving fraud...First, the plaintiff must prove based on the preponderance of the evidence that the information he was provided AT THE TIME HE WAS PROVIDED IT, was wrong. Second, the plaintiff has to show that the defendant gave him the fraudulent data in attempt to deceive him. IF the information was believed by WU to be true when it was provided to him and subsequently became false or was shown to be false, the plaintiff would lose the case.

Fraud is considered an "intent crime" (yes, even civil fraud). To win the plaintiff has to not only show that the information they received was fraudulent, they have to show that the defendant knew it was fraudulent and provided it any way to obtain something of value from the plaintiff (in this case, his work hours).

This is just what I've observed in fraud cases...If there were several factual assessments of the financial situation of an organization and the company only provided one of those to the prospective employee, the company is not guilty of fraud as the information they provided is not fraudulent...incomplete yes, but not fraudulent.

But to my eye, I still wonder why he didn't file his lawsuit based on wrongful termination? Seems like a much easier case to make.

[Columbuseer]

Read where former president of wu called in An outside independent auditor during the summer. I would imagine he did not trust the data he was being given and also wanted due diligence before putting his reputation on the line. That might help his case.

[Fightingscot82]

Absolutely an "at will" employee. However, presidents are usually under an independent contract since the job duties and compensation are so unique compared to the rest of the campus. When hiring a president, a lot of documents and figures are shared, so if those numbers shared during the interview phase were inaccurate or misrepresented they'd have a case.

[Columbuseer]

[Columbuseer]

The IntelligencerThe Intelligencer

[CALUPA69]

For the Diocese to be liable the plaintiff would need to show not just a tie between WU and the Diocese, but knowledge and acquiescence of the alleged fraud. Just because a person who is employed by entity A has an affiliation with entity B and perpetrates a fraud as an employee of entity A does not mean that entity B is also liable...Even if entity A goes out of business.

Fraud in hiring, which is ultimately what the plaintiff is alleging, is easy to prove but also very hard to prove. In this case it seems to hinge on what documents were provided to the plaintiff before he was hired and where they true and accurate at the time they were provided to him? Also, was there a willful intent to deceive the plaintiff about the financial situation at the university before he was hired? For the school to prevail all they need to demonstrate is that at the time that they provided the documents to the plaintiff the information was true and accurate to the best of their knowledge. Doesn't matter if the information was found to be inaccurate after the fact.

I find it curious that the plaintiff is going after fraud in his hiring and apparently not wrongful termination. But hey, I'm sure his attorney would be more than willing to file a lawsuit on that as well...for an additional fee!!

Not a lawyer nor have I ever played one. But I know first hand that civil juries are extremely unpredictable. With much lower standards of guilt and sometimes absurd penalties, defendants frequently find quick settlement the preferred outcome as opposed to a MacDonald's Coffee verdict. IMO this approach is especially appropriate in the case of a single plaintiff versus class action cases. Time will tell.

[boatcapt]

Agree all except that I see the Wheeling diocese as the one who may get stuck if this drags out. If they have the funds to settle and dump WU, it may ultimately be less expensive and embarrassing, especially in view of the history of the Church in lawsuits. They are not a sympathetic defender.

For the Diocese to be liable the plaintiff would need to show not just a tie between WU and the Diocese, but knowledge and acquiescence of the alleged fraud. Just because a person who is employed by entity A has an affiliation with entity B and perpetrates a fraud as an employee of entity A does not mean that entity B is also liable...Even if entity A goes out of business.

Fraud in hiring, which is ultimately what the plaintiff is alleging, is easy to prove but also very hard to prove. In this case it seems to hinge on what documents were provided to the plaintiff before he was hired and where they true and accurate at the time they were provided to him? Also, was there a willful intent to deceive the plaintiff about the financial situation at the university before he was hired? For the school to prevail all they need to demonstrate is that at the time that they provided the documents to the plaintiff the information was true and accurate to the best of their knowledge. Doesn't matter if the information was found to be inaccurate after the fact.

I find it curious that the plaintiff is going after fraud in his hiring and apparently not wrongful termination. But hey, I'm sure his attorney would be more than willing to file a lawsuit on that as well...for an additional fee!!

[CALUPA69]

If the future is bleak for WU as you postulate, it is in their best interest to drag this out to the point were they go out of business. Now it IS in the plaintiffs best interest to seek a settlement as quickly as possible so that he gets something.

Always interesting in these fraud cases when the victim doesn't seek a criminal charge first...or quite often EVER. Certainly the proof bar is higher in a criminal case (vice civil) but once you get over that bar, it is a slam dunk for the civil case. Also, the government bears the financial burden of investigation in a criminal fraud case while the plaintiff bears the investigative cost in a civil action.

Agree all except that I see the Wheeling diocese as the one who may get stuck if this drags out. If they have the funds to settle and dump WU, it may ultimately be less expensive and embarrassing, especially in view of the history of the Church in lawsuits. They are not a sympathetic defender.

[boatcapt]

Wasn't really addressing the tactical value of dragging it out as much as the long term strategy of appearing to avoid acknowledging what is obvious. For years the church used this tactic with regard to a much more serious subject and now has switched to settling as quickly as possible. In that way the legal costs are minimised as is public scrutiny of what went on. If you agree that the future for WU is bleak, the sooner this is settled, the better.

If the future is bleak for WU as you postulate, it is in their best interest to drag this out to the point were they go out of business. Now it IS in the plaintiffs best interest to seek a settlement as quickly as possible so that he gets something.

Always interesting in these fraud cases when the victim doesn't seek a criminal charge first...or quite often EVER. Certainly the proof bar is higher in a criminal case (vice civil) but once you get over that bar, it is a slam dunk for the civil case. Also, the government bears the financial burden of investigation in a criminal fraud case while the plaintiff bears the investigative cost in a civil action.

[CALUPA69]

I disagree. Dragging civil cases out is a time honored "trick" of corporations when faced with lawsuits filed by individuals. While I would assume that the plaintiffs attorney is working on a % basis, they STILL don't work for free and perhaps even more importantly, outside experts absolutely do NOT work for free. The longer the corporation (in this case WU and the named defendants) can drag this out, the more willing the plaintiff, who is funding 100% of his side of the lawsuit, will be to settle for something that might be far less than he deserves.

One thing I know for sure, the lawyers on both sides always "get theirs."

Wasn't really addressing the tactical value of dragging it out as much as the long term strategy of appearing to avoid acknowledging what is obvious. For years the church used this tactic with regard to a much more serious subject and now has switched to settling as quickly as possible. In that way the legal costs are minimised as is public scrutiny of what went on. If you agree that the future for WU is bleak, the sooner this is settled, the better.

[Columbuseer]

[boatcapt]

Though totally unrelated to other matters, you would think that the WHEELING DIOCESE would know that delaying resolving serious matters by dragging things out in court is not an effective strategy. If, as seems possible/likely, WU is going down, other than making attorneys wealthy there is no good reason to drag it out.

I disagree. Dragging civil cases out is a time honored "trick" of corporations when faced with lawsuits filed by individuals. While I would assume that the plaintiffs attorney is working on a % basis, they STILL don't work for free and perhaps even more importantly, outside experts absolutely do NOT work for free. The longer the corporation (in this case WU and the named defendants) can drag this out, the more willing the plaintiff, who is funding 100% of his side of the lawsuit, will be to settle for something that might be far less than he deserves.

One thing I know for sure, the lawyers on both sides always "get theirs."